[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by The Might

Ok, now I really am getting started. German bellicosity starting WWI? You sound just like Clemenceau, so one-sided and without any deeper thinking.

This might come as a surprise to you, but sometimes I am actually accused of 'deep thinking'. I shan't belabor the point about Wilhelm and his generals, as it diminishes the original question, but I will comment that I am well aware of all the precedents of WWI, whom did what to whom, and who sided with whom. I will only leave with a comment from the academic journalist Alex Woodcock-Clarke, who stated: "He [Wilhelm II] may not have been 'the father of war' but he was certainly its 'godfather'."

Wilhelm, who was indeed diagnosed as a 'meddling megalomaniac' by contemporaries, pushed Austro-Hungary into a hard-line stance against Serbia, and Germany was the only country to invade neutral countries, like Luxembourg and Belgium (where Germans slaughtered civilians). I suggest you read the Pulitzer-Prize winning "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman, which brilliantly encapsulates the first month of WWI. It is not merely that Germany fomented the war, refused offers of detente and struck first, it is they continued the war another four years, when many of the German generals realized they could hope for nothing better than a stalemate after their Schlieffen Plan utterly failed after the first month of the war.

I am not obviating the parts played by the other combatants, as WWI was a miasma of muddle-headed lunacy on all sides; however, Wilhelm and his generals certainly bear the greatest culpability in starting and continuing the war. The evidence is there, whatever revisionist or partisan nonsense you care to quote.

Originally Posted by The Might

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.

TM, as you seem quite intelligent, I will have to surmise that you refuse to take the original discussion in context. Given the situation and the time period (an era that precluded such modern inventions as 'detente' and 'passive resistance, and where these newfangled contrivances would be utterly alien in both a Middle-earth and a 'real world' sense), and considering that the usurper of power within the Shire (that being Saruman), whom you've already admitted lacked a conscience, and Saruman's barbaric band of cutthroats and thieves (again, I highly doubt they differed much from the murdering bands of merciless mercenaries who made life hell in 14th century France), would not ever feel compassion or sympathy for the hobbits they oppressed. They, in fact, thrived on the hobbits' misery, and purposely set out to destroy the Shire's bucolic way of life (clear-cutting trees, bulldozing hobbit-holes, replacing them with mean shacks, erecting smoke-belching chimneys, etc.).

This was Saruman's intent. In the meanest, vilest manner possible, he set out to destroy the Hobbits, believing them an easy mark. You'll notice he had little success in Bree (Ferny and his men were "shown the gate" as Butterbur said). As far as Gandalf, he said succinctly:

'I am with you at present,' said Gandalf. 'but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folks to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.

In context with the 'scouring' and Frodo's evident distaste for battle, Merry said it best:

'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'

So, after this circumlocutious (but intriguing) discussion, we see that, in context with the era presented (vague, certainly, but definitely free of any trappings from the Enlightenment or later), and with the specific dire situation (where Lotho had been killed, Lobelia and Fatty imprisoned, and the ruffians under Sharkey intent on killing the newcome hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin), battle was the only outcome certain to expel the tyrants from the Shire. The quick and decisive actions by the Hobbits actually reduced the casualties and ongoing misery of the Shire. As you may be aware, any effort at 'passive resistance' in real history (such as in India and South Africa) takes decades to bear fruit -- and hundreds or thousands of people die in the effort. Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

Context, we must have context!